Battlefield Earth: Part Duh - Page 2

Stan4dSteph · 07-01-2005, 01:57 PM

Read Roger Ebert's review. He gave it 2 stars, and from his explanation of why he didn't like it, I'm reconsidering seeing it in the theater.

Gn2Dlnd · 07-01-2005, 02:20 PM

Ebert mentions the flaming train. This is, in fact, one of exactly three scenes that only Spielberg could have come up with. All three scenes are silent, last about 30 seconds, and do not advance the plot or involve the actor's participation. They are simply for the audience, and they are beautiful and elegant. And the ENTIRE REST OF THE MOVIE IS STOMACH-TURNING IN ITS SUCKINESS!

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-01-2005, 02:26 PM

Yay! I don't have to see this and be horribly disappointed! :happy dance:

surfinmuse · 07-01-2005, 02:44 PM

You know, I have to admit that I really enjoyed it as plot-riddled-with-problems-and-writers-conveniences-yet-visually-fun-to-watch cinema fare. Not a fan of Tom Cruise either, and the relationship-writing (and acting, for that matter, though I think Dakota Fanning is OK) is TV-MOW at best.

I don't mean to undermine all the reasons cited by people (critics and viewers alike) who don't like it. In fact, I agree with most of it. And yet, I'll still say that a good time was had by all in a darkened theatre. In Tom's words, "this is great fun cinema, isn't it?"

I would stop short of the glowing (and at times cloying OpEd piece about Spielbergian career introspective) L.A. Times review , but I agree with the sentiment of "good fun cinema."

Guess this is a bit of a thread-derail, by POV if not topic. So... back to the reguarly-scheduled program. As you were...

Boss Radio · 07-02-2005, 12:37 AM

My thoughts:

The film is pure popcorn. It's a loving remake of the classic 50s George Pal production (and the book, radio show, tv series, rock opera, etc) and Spielberg hits hard, whether it's action, destuction or cloying sentimentality. Heavy handed? Sure. Clumsy? At times. Poetic? Dark and relentless? Yes. Lame-ass ending? You bet.

If you like simple, to the point sci fi disaster movies, then go. Run. Enjoy without shame. It's dark and it's fun and the martians are very destructive, and it's fun to watch stuff blow up.

Cruise is great in the picture, as is Dakota Fanning.

As far as the 9/11 references, that tragedy gave us a new visual lexicon to draw upon in order to accurately telegraph what the aftermath of a disaster would look like, at least to us in the USA. Flyers of missing people? Why not? That scene would most likely play out the same.

I went with a group of industry types who were mildly entertained. I really enjoyed the film, except for the maudlin ending. My friend David Hughes, who is a Fangoria writer, loved the film so much he would marry it if he could. I guess it all depends on your expectations.

I also like Blacula, so take my review with a grain of salt.

Matterhorn Fan · 07-02-2005, 08:35 AM

So maybe it's a good thing that when we got to the theater it was sold out.

Could it be so bad that it's entertaining?

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-02-2005, 12:20 PM

Now I'm intrigued. I love a good crappy shoot-em-up as much as anyone.

Sounds like a rental for me, when GD is out of town or something.

Not Afraid · 07-02-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boss Radio

I also like Blacula, so take my review with a grain of salt.

That's all anyone needs to know.

Kevy Baby · 07-04-2005, 10:00 AM

So what you're saying Commodore is that you didn't like the movie?

Gn2Dlnd · 07-04-2005, 12:23 PM

The Commodore gives "War of the Worlds" two thumbs up!

MY ASS!

07-01-2005, 01:57 PM	#11
Stan4dSteph Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Bay Area, CA Posts: 3,156	Read Roger Ebert's review. He gave it 2 stars, and from his explanation of why he didn't like it, I'm reconsidering seeing it in the theater.
	Submit to Quotes

07-01-2005, 02:20 PM	#12
Gn2Dlnd Parmmadore Jim Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Casita del Queso Posts: 3,810	Ebert mentions the flaming train. This is, in fact, one of exactly three scenes that only Spielberg could have come up with. All three scenes are silent, last about 30 seconds, and do not advance the plot or involve the actor's participation. They are simply for the audience, and they are beautiful and elegant. And the ENTIRE REST OF THE MOVIE IS STOMACH-TURNING IN ITS SUCKINESS! __________________ Does anyone still wear a hat?
	Submit to Quotes

07-01-2005, 02:26 PM	#13
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Yay! I don't have to see this and be horribly disappointed! :happy dance: __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

07-01-2005, 02:44 PM	#14
surfinmuse Mind the Gap Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 123	You know, I have to admit that I really enjoyed it as plot-riddled-with-problems-and-writers-conveniences-yet-visually-fun-to-watch cinema fare. Not a fan of Tom Cruise either, and the relationship-writing (and acting, for that matter, though I think Dakota Fanning is OK) is TV-MOW at best. I don't mean to undermine all the reasons cited by people (critics and viewers alike) who don't like it. In fact, I agree with most of it. And yet, I'll still say that a good time was had by all in a darkened theatre. In Tom's words, "this is great fun cinema, isn't it?" I would stop short of the glowing (and at times cloying OpEd piece about Spielbergian career introspective) L.A. Times review , but I agree with the sentiment of "good fun cinema." Guess this is a bit of a thread-derail, by POV if not topic. So... back to the reguarly-scheduled program. As you were...
	Submit to Quotes

07-02-2005, 12:37 AM	#15
Boss Radio The Littlest Hobo Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hobo Junction Posts: 393	My thoughts: The film is pure popcorn. It's a loving remake of the classic 50s George Pal production (and the book, radio show, tv series, rock opera, etc) and Spielberg hits hard, whether it's action, destuction or cloying sentimentality. Heavy handed? Sure. Clumsy? At times. Poetic? Dark and relentless? Yes. Lame-ass ending? You bet. If you like simple, to the point sci fi disaster movies, then go. Run. Enjoy without shame. It's dark and it's fun and the martians are very destructive, and it's fun to watch stuff blow up. Cruise is great in the picture, as is Dakota Fanning. As far as the 9/11 references, that tragedy gave us a new visual lexicon to draw upon in order to accurately telegraph what the aftermath of a disaster would look like, at least to us in the USA. Flyers of missing people? Why not? That scene would most likely play out the same. I went with a group of industry types who were mildly entertained. I really enjoyed the film, except for the maudlin ending. My friend David Hughes, who is a Fangoria writer, loved the film so much he would marry it if he could. I guess it all depends on your expectations. I also like Blacula, so take my review with a grain of salt.
	Submit to Quotes

07-02-2005, 08:35 AM	#16
Matterhorn Fan Double Agent Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Back East Posts: 2,071	So maybe it's a good thing that when we got to the theater it was sold out. Could it be so bad that it's entertaining?
	Submit to Quotes

07-02-2005, 12:20 PM	#17
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Now I'm intrigued. I love a good crappy shoot-em-up as much as anyone. Sounds like a rental for me, when GD is out of town or something. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

07-04-2005, 10:00 AM	#19
Kevy Baby Chowder Head Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Yes Posts: 18,500	So what you're saying Commodore is that you didn't like the movie? __________________ The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot verify their validity. - Abraham Lincoln
	Submit to Quotes

07-04-2005, 12:23 PM	#20
Gn2Dlnd Parmmadore Jim Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Casita del Queso Posts: 3,810	The Commodore gives "War of the Worlds" two thumbs up! MY ASS! __________________ Does anyone still wear a hat?
	Submit to Quotes